Dear Australian Public Service Commission,

This newspaper article: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne... refers to an email sent by the APSC’s former General Counsel, Sayuri Grady, purportedly threatening the not-for-proft, public-sector corruption uncovering, website: righttoknow - with a suit for defamation brought by the Commonwealth (the ‘threatening email’).

Sayuri Grady’s conduct in preparing and sending the threatening email was investigated by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation report found that:

1. former Public Service Commissioner, crooked Liberal Party political appointee Peter Woolcott, authorised, under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, the use of taxpayer funds/resources to enable Ms Grady’s preparation and sending of the threatening email to the publishers of the righttknow website;

2. Mr Woolcott made the decision to use taxpayer resources in that way after the APSC’s Senior Executive/Assistant Commissioner for Workplace Relations Marco Spaccavento who, despite his legal obligations to be honest, accountable, apolitical and transparent, had a big sook to Mr Woolcott about being publicly called out for his role in attempting to cover up the evil corruption engaged in by vile, corrupt Liberal Party/Institute of Public Affairs grub, former Public Service Commissioner, John Lloyd;

3. Sayuri Grady had actively marked the threatening email as being subject to ‘legal privilege’ (a marking applied to communications that relate to existing or anticipated legal proceedings) despite knowing that legal professional privilege could not attach to the threatening email including because the APSC, on behalf of the Commonwealth, cannot sue for defamation (a fact that the publishers of the righttoknow website were not aware of when they received the threatening email prepared and sent by Sayuri Grady); and

4. the APSC had actively altered its email settings from their default to allow emails actively categorised by APSC staff as ‘OFFICIAL’ and ‘LEGAL PRIVILEGE’ under the Protective Security Framework to be sent to, and received by, persons outside of the GovLink network (ie to email addresses with non ‘gov.au’ domains such as the righttoknow website).

Notably, (and in apparent contravention of her obligation under s.13(7) of the Public Service Act 1999) the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman officer who conducted the investigation into Sayuri Grady’s conduct was one of a number of Commonwealth Ombudsman officers responsible for repeatedly covering up the politically-motivated corruption engaged in by former Public Service Commissioner, corrupt Liberal Party/Institute of Public Affairs grub, John Lloyd. (The Institute of Public Affairs is a far-right, white supremacist group closely affiliated with the Liberal Party).

Furthermore, despite there being, in addition to the threatening email, numerous phone conversations between Sayuri Grady and the representatives of the righttoknow website, the corrupt Commonwealth Ombudsman officer responsible for conducting the investigation actively refused to contact the publishers of the righttoknow website to seek their submissions in respect of Sayuri Grady’s conduct. You don’t need to hold a Certificate IV in Government Investigations to know that any competently, honestly and moreover, apolitically conducted investigation into Sayuri Grady’s conduct would’ve necessitated contacting the publishers of the righttoknow website to seek statements in relation to Sayuri Grady’s conduct. Indeed, the only reason an investigator would refuse to seek such submissions would be out of concern that those submissions would affect the pre-determined and politically motivated outcome of the investigation. A point made plain by the publishers of the righttoknow website here when they said: “We feel that it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the ombudsman to get the full story without contacting us first”: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...

A subsequent investigation into Sayuri Grady’s conduct carried out by then APSC First Assistant Commissioner Grant Lovelock, found that Sayuri Grady had provided the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman with false information in her submissions to the Ombudsman’s investigation into her conduct. Further, that that false information was relied upon by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in arriving at the investigation outcome. The provision of false information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman is a criminal offence (see ss. 135.1, 136.1 and 137.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995).

Sayuri Grady left the employ of the APSC in the course of Grant Lovelock’s investigation into her conduct and now works for Lawyerbank, a law firm that provides legal services to the Commonwealth Government.

I note that Peter Woolcott, just like his predecessor, was apparently appointed to his statutory position and its associated obscene publicly-funded salary on the basis of his political affiliations and in the absence merit-based selection process (and therefore in contravention of s. 10A of the Public Service Act 1999): https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/...

The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s investigation report into the conduct of former APSC General Counsel, Sayuri Grady, which was, in October 2020, provided to the Australian Public Service Commissioner, political appointee of the Liberal Party, Peter Woolcott. That report states, pursuant to s.51(2)(d) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013:

“That the Commonwealth Ombudsman recommends to the [APSC] that it: (i) reviews any internal guidance materials for [APSC] staff relating to dissemination limiting markers; and (ii) provides further training to its Legal Services area with respect to their correct usage. “

But crooked political appointee Peter Woolcott refused to implement those recommendations presumably because they didn’t suit his political/professional interests but also because, just like every other political appointee of the former government, Mr Woolcott is wholly devoid of integrity.

Under the FOI Act, I seek a copy of any invoice issued to the APSC by Lawyerbank from 1 October 2021 onwards. I’m willing to exclude, from the scope of my request, the hourly rates mentioned in any relevant document (but not the total dollar amount of any relevant invoice) and the personal information of any person mentioned in a relevant document except for: i) Ms Grady’s personal information, and ii) the personal information of any person who is (or was at the relevant time) a Commonwealth public servant or statutory officer.

Kind regards

Dear FOI,

Noting:

- the shutdown period in Commonwealth agencies such as the APSC is only a week;
- the narrow scope and highly particularised nature of my request; and
- that to the extent the APSC holds relevant documents, that will give rise APS Code of Conduct/dislcosable conduct issues (and there's obviously a wide public interest in those sort of public sector corruption/integrity issues particularly at the present time);

I can't, in good conscience, grant you a 30 day extension only for you to extend the time within which a decision is to be made by another 30 days, by reference ss.27 and.or 27A of the FOI Act.

In light of the above I'm happy to grant an extension to either:
i) 2 February 2024 - but only on the basis the APSC does not further extend the time within which a decision must be made in reliance on ss27 and/or 27A or otherwise; or alternatively
ii) 10 January 2024.

Yours sincerely,

Georgie